Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Trend

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This has been on AFD for over a month and is clearly not going to get deleted. Anyone wanting to merge is welcome to and does not need a further consensus. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Trend

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article citations are virtually nonexistent aside from one source which isn’t available online. Likely fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Toa Nidhiki05 18:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and New York. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Small but historically important political groups are absolutely meet the notability criteria on Wikipedia. As for the complaint that the source "isn’t available online", since when is that a rule about citable sources?! This book is a normally published, citable book that's in its second edition now, and absolutely meets the criteria for WP:RS and WP:PUBLISHED. [1] The latter rule specifically says "It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet." Peter G Werner (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this tiny bit of content to a suitable article such as New_Communist_movement#Origins. I can't see a WP:GNG pass. There is no inherent notability in a political movement. The freedom road reference can be found here [[2]] - a now deleted essay on the Freedom Road Socialist Organization website. It's hard to judge its reliability or independence from the topic but I would judge it WP:QUESTIONABLE. The other source given - the book Revolution in the Air has its own Wikipedia page which does not mention "The Trend". Springnuts (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the FRSO is probably the most rational of all the US NCM organisations and, relatively speaking, the least doctrinaire and sectarian. So, I would consider the Ethan Young piece, with usual caveats applied given the source, as reliable. Moreover, the length of Young's piece shows there's more than a "tiny bit of content" available. Combined with the discussions in Elbaum's Revolution, there is enough to scrape over the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is consensus that at least some of the prose is useful but not clear whether to keep or merge. Boldly relisting for a third time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.